Marc Randazza Emasculates Pick-Up Artist, Legal Counsel In Hilariously Brutal Response To A Bogus Takedown Demand

from the careless-butthurt-salve-application-results-in-further-burns dept

Another person has mistaken the First Amendment for umbrella coverage against criticism. Julien Blanc — a self-described “international leader in dating advice — one of several like-minded individuals employed by Real Social Dynamics (the “World’s top dating coaching, self-actualization & social dynamics company”), a company Blanc co-founded, had footage of one of his seminars go viral thanks to writer Jenn Li, who posted the “horrifying” footage at UK news outlet, The Independent.

Here’s her brief description of the objectionable content contained in Blanc’s/RSD’s video:

When talking about how to “seduce” a Japanese woman, he is quoted as saying: “Just grab her… To take the pressure off, yell Pikachu or Pokemon or Tamagotchi or something”. He is obsessed with degrading Japanese women, and abusing his white male privilege. “At least in Tokyo, if you’re a white male,” he says “you can do what you want. I’m just romping through the streets, just grabbing girls’ heads, just like, head, pfft on the dick. Head, on the dick, yelling, ‘pikachu’.”

In case anyone feels that this might be a misrepresentation of Blanc’s views and actions, here’s the video itself.

TL;DW: If you’re a white male, you can pretty much do whatever you want to Japanese women, provided (a) you have one functioning arm and (b) you shout some half-assed Japanese term as a “disclaimer” or something. See also: included footage of Julien Blanc performing these actions on actual Japanese women while in Japan.

The backlash has been incredible. In addition to tons of internet commentary and further exposure of Blanc’s misogyny, governments of foreign countries are now considering taking legal action to prevent Blanc from giving his seminars on their soil. Australia has already revoked his visa ahead of scheduled appearance, thanks to pressure from a petition. The UK and Canada are considering similar actions.

Real Social Dynamics has attempted to perform some damage control, but there are far too many fires to put out. So, it has begun doing the next best thing: issuing scattershot, baseless legal threats. One such legal threat went to the owner of InfiniteChan (aka 8chan), a message board modeled after the super-popular (and quite often, super-frightening) 4chan.

There are many mistakes made in this demand letter, written by Maurice Pilosof, “legal counsel” for Real Social Dynamic, but perhaps none is bigger than failing to realize that everything contained in the URL listed is user-generated. Far too many lawyers fail to understand the protections provided by Section 230. There are also far too many lawyers who simply don’t care, throwing around their letterhead and officious tone in hopes of forcing swift capitulation.

Unfortunately for Maurice Pilosof and RSD, this ignorance (presumably willful, considering Pilosof presents himself as focused on “trademarks, copyrights, intellectual property transactions and music licensing”) of Section 230 wasn’t their biggest problem. Their biggest problem was the opposing force: the Randazza Legal Group. Marc Randazza and Michael Cernovich responded to RSD’s stupid and baseless takedown demand with a blistering refusal loaded with colorful imagery and even more colorful language. [PDF link] Oh, and a full-page picture of Manzinga.

First, Randazza addresses the video itself, something not mentioned in the takedown demand but crucial to the understanding of what sort of person Pilosof is defending here.

Please correct me if I am wrong. This all started when your client posted a video in which Julien Blanc gives men advice on picking up Japanese women. (if you call it that)

Part of his advice is as follows: “at least in Tokyo, If you’re a white male, you can do what you want”…


I don’t know whether it is true that white men can do whatever they want in Tokyo. If that’s true, I’m moving there. I want to do whatever I want, without consequences. All I’ve been looking for my entire life is the ability to have a consequence-free existence. I thought that getting really rich was the secret to that. Imagine my delight when I learned that I don’t need to be a billionaire to do whatever the fuck I want. I’ve had the power to have a consequence free existence all along! I just had to look inside myself,and see my Caucasian DNA, look inside my pants and see my penis, and just seize it as my birthright (the power, not my penis).

After offering a bounty of $5,000 for anyone who videotapes themselves handing out a “royal ass kicking” to Blanc (“double” if it’s one of the women Blanc attempts to assault), Randazza deals with Pilosof’s/RSD’s complaint that messages posted at InfiniteChan are “untrue, private and defamatory.”

Lets go back to page one. Your client is the guy who seems to advocate sexual assault against random women, on the basis that he’s Caucasian, and they’re not. Neither Mike, nor I, are in any danger of winning the “Male Feminist of the Year Award.” But Jesus Hello Kitty Christ on a Rocket-Powered Toboggan, are you FREAKIN’ SERIOUS?

If you have the audacity to file a defamation claim on behalf of a guy who advocates sexual assault, and relies on racist bunk to justify it, then come at us, bro. Our client might just waive his CDA immunity and let the case stand on the merits of the defamation claim. I can not express how much joy I would find in watching you try and articulate how your client’s reputation has been harmed by anything other than his own asinine, racist, sexist, rapey-creep-scumbag statements.

Randazza closes by reminding RSD’s lawyer that the First Amendment is double-edged. If his client wants to enjoy the privileges, he needs to learn how to deal with the downside.

Your client made some really objectionable statements. There is a price for that – it is called “criticism.” Your client acted like an ass, and people pointed at him and said “look at that asshole!” Rather than answer the criticism, your client sought to cower behind a wall of censorship. This really isn’t advisable for someone like your client, who will likely need to raise the shield of the First Amendment at some time in the near future.

Well said. The whole letter is worth a read (and a re-read). Too many people seem to feel the First Amendment guarantees a consequence-free platform for questionable and objectionable statements. That’s where they’re wrong. The government has no business trying to determine what can or can’t be said, but the public is absolutely free to offer its opinion about the statements of others.

While some may point out that petitioning foreign governments in hopes of preventing Blanc from speaking is a violation of his rights, the fact is that petitions are also protected speech. Foreign governments are still free to ignore the more formalized hecklers’ vetoes, but protecting a foreigner’s domestic free speech rights isn’t going to win them the adoration of the angered masses. Blanc may be forced to ply his wares in the US only — a place where he enjoys greater speech protections, but also one where his “magical white guy powers” will be considerably more muted.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: 8chan, infinitechan, real social dynamics

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Marc Randazza Emasculates Pick-Up Artist, Legal Counsel In Hilariously Brutal Response To A Bogus Takedown Demand”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
S. T. Stone (profile) says:

That’s one of the best replies to a legal challenge that I’ve ever read.

More lawyers should respond to nutjobs like this. It’d make things a hell of a lot more entertaining for those of us on the sidelines.

Now, where’s my popcorn? I haven’t been waiting for a counter-reply this badly since the last time that the Prenda Players decided they had intelligence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I don’t know if Cosby is guilty or not but I think your comment arguably illustrates a point.

On the one hand if you’re rich you can get away with things because you can buy the best legal representation and you may also get other benefits such as the ability to buy certain aspects of the legal system itself. On the other hand if you’re rich there are all sorts of people that will do all sorts of shady things to get that money even if that means making up stories about you or cops simply trying to prioritize you as a potential asset forfeiture target.

One could also argue that the losers are the middle class (as someone else argued). They both have something to lose and they don’t have the resources to defend themselves in court.

Pragmatic says:

While some may point out that petitioning foreign governments in hopes of preventing Blanc from speaking is a violation of his rights, the fact is that petitions are also protected speech. Foreign governments are still free to ignore the more formalized hecklers’ vetoes, but protecting a foreigner’s domestic free speech rights isn’t going to win them the adoration of the angered masses. Blanc may be forced to ply his wares in the US only — a place where he enjoys greater speech protections, but also one where his “magical white guy powers” will be considerably more muted.

Well said, sir. Personally, I’d let him in just for the lulz when his paying clients find out that his “tactics” are a one-way trip to the cop shop. Or, as Randazza hopes, the hospital.

Anonymous Coward says:

Good on Marc, but a real shame he affiliates with Cernovich. Dude is a major MRA creeper (amongst other things, he thinks date rape flat-out doesn’t exist) and is currently using GamerGate to spout some real noxious bullshit under the guise of protecting free speech. Fact is, If Blanc weren’t being so censorious, Cernovich would probably be a huge fan.

Anonymous Coward says:

What a complete asshole. But...

…I’m concerned about the censorship implications here.

Teaching people how to do X is not the same as doing X. For example: teaching them how to disable an opponent using karate is not the same as violently assaulting someone. We don’t shut down all the karate studios or even any of them because someone who once trained there commits assault. So as awful as this guy is, as horrible as his material is, as offensive and appalling as I find it, I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea of having governments cut off his speech.

(I am, however, comfortable with governments enforcing their laws against the act of sexual assault, or whatever it’s called in their legalese. It seems that he’s not only committed quite a bit of it, but he’s done prosecutors the favor of documenting it. And I’m comfortable with the idea of individuals or groups engaging in their own counter-speech: that’s how free speech is supposed to work.)

The Time magazine article (linked) says that he was forced to leave Australia. Why wasn’t he arrested, charged, and prosecuted? Surely there must exist ample evidence that he committed crimes under Australian law while on Australian soil. It seems to me that merely tossing him out of the country ignores that and is just a convenient way to Make The Problem Go Away.

Jim says:

Re: What a complete asshole. But...

Your example falls apart a bit because teaching someone karate can have plenty of positive effects outside of “beating someone up” such as self-discipline, self-defense, general health/exercise, etc.

There really is no “use this for good only” angle when teaching someone how to best perform rape.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: What a complete asshole. But...

I agree that there doesn’t seem to be any positive aspect to this (aside from being a counterexample).

And maybe my example of karate wasn’t the best.

But do we want to ban speech based on that criteria? I think that’s a problem. There are some — perhaps many — who would argue that publishing all the Snowden disclosures have no positive aspect, and therefore it should be forbidden. There are some — perhaps many — who would argue that explicit horror films have no positive aspect, and therefore they should be forbidden. There are some — perhaps many — who would argue that teaching political philosophies like communism has no positive aspect, and therefore they should be forbidden. (And they were.)

I think we’re on a slippery slope here. I think this guy is a jackass and I hope that if he ever tries to sexually assault my daughter that she breaks his nose and crushes his balls. (I have trained her well.) But: I’m not entirely comfortable using the machinery of government to censor what he has to say.

Remember, freedom of speech is not for people saying the things that we all want to hear and agree with. When it’s really important is when people are saying things that are offensive, unpopular, distasteful, etc. I’m inclined to think that this is one of those cases.

S. T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What a complete asshole. But...

I’m as ardent a defender of free speech as possible. I don’t think the guy deserves to have his platform taken away from him, no matter how reprehensible his words. (And let’s be clear: he is advocating for the rape and sexual assault of women, which is just a step ‘below’ advocating for murder on the ‘really heinous shit to say’ ladder.)

But here’s why I don’t have a problem with all the attempts to ban this guy from going to other countries to teach this shit: those other countries don’t have an obligation to give him a raised platform for his speech. The goverments of those counties do, however, have an obligation to protect the citizenry of their respective countries. If those countries feel that banning a man who openly advocates for the sexual assault of their respective populations, I take no issue with their bans.

The man still has his platform. He’s just not entitled to have it raised for him by the government of any country.

Blackfiredragon13 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What a complete asshole. But...

Hell your daughter wouldn’t have to. If the bystanders are anything like me his fingers would be broken and severed individually, eyes surgically removed, tongue cut out, teeth torn out with pliers, small cuts running down his body, rape him with a kitchen knife and to finish dump him in a kiddie pool filled with gasoline and light it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What a complete asshole. But...

I am Australian, but not a lawyer. I’m sure there is one out there that can clarify. The gist of it is, Australians can pretty much say what they want in Australia but if you are not Australian, they don’t have to let you in to say whatever you want if they don’t want to. A foreigner coming into the country to actively promote sexual assault, which is the promotion of a crime, doesn’t get a lot of sympathy when they get kicked out. Most of that sympathy comes when they boot the underage refugees out on their own.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: What a complete asshole. But...

The Time magazine article (linked) says that he was forced to leave Australia. Why wasn’t he arrested, charged, and prosecuted? Surely there must exist ample evidence that he committed crimes under Australian law while on Australian soil.

He wasn’t arrested nor charged with a criminal offense since his actions did not rise to the level of incitement.

John Jones says:

Re: What a complete asshole. But...

Governments exercise wide latitude in whether to allow nonresidents to enter or remain on their soil. I am completely comfortable letting them exercise that prerogative. When Australia granted his visa, he gained a revocable right to enter the country. They could have revoked it for no reason at all and been perfectly in their rights.

Machin Shin (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You obviously have never really talked to many introverts. Our society can kind of be a pain in the ass to those of us who do not enjoy big loud parties and don’t have any interest in being the center of attention.

I’m willing to bet most of the people at these conventions are really just introverts trying to figure out how to overcome that handicap when it comes to dating. This is hardly a good reason to condemn them as human beings. They are just unfortunate people cheated out of their money by a scam artist.

Now of course, anyone who went to this show with an understanding of what it would be like…. They are idiots who should be questioning their place as a human. Of course, if you knew about the content of a show like this then you wouldn’t really waste your money attending now would you?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The biggest problem is that this bozo is teaching these suckers how to be obnoxious jerks, while falsely claiming that it’s the kind of behavior all women crave from men.

And no doubt when they complain that these routines failed for them (and probably failed miserably), they’ll be told that they’re just “doing it wrong” and to fix that, they need to buy another, more “advanced” course.

Blackfiredragon13 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You’d be suprised how strange some women are. One of my friends once dated this girl, and Jesus Christ she was ……kinky. Like (if my friend can be believed- and on this I do)tied up and handcuffed before he walks in with a black mask and then commencse the rape fantasy. And then there’s how she apparently enjoys it when it starts with her asleep.

Anonymous Coward says:

Uh Oh!

One thing this category 1 idiot is forgetting is the Japanese hobby/pastime of studying martial arts, all their lives. I suspect, if he actually tried this crap in Japan, he would find himself waking up in full-body traction in the hospital prison ward. The Japanese girls may take it for a while, or not, but the males will be around shortly to set things right. For that matter, I wouldn’t mess with the girls either. As for Japanese law allowing such things, now or ever, I don’t think so.

Mr. Randazza, as always, is superb. Well done!

Anonymous Coward says:

Blanc is a sexist, racist white male. How anyone could represent him is beyond belief. What many people continue to forget is that other countries have the right to ban anyone from entering their country. Japan and Europe do this all the time.

If someone starts a petition on any website and said country barred an individual because of that petition, there isn’t a damned thing the person can do about it because they are sovereign nations and people get banned all the time from their own public and private behavior. Japan bans people from their country all the time, this isn’t something new.

Good luck on trying to get yourself removed from a country’s banned list.

andrews (profile) says:

Re: [who would represent Mr. Blanc]

Blanc is a sexist, racist white male. How anyone could represent him is beyond belief.

It is often the unpopular who require representation the most.

In the criminal arena, for instance, someone has to defend the accused. I recall one case where everyone in the office knew the defendant did it, and to boot, no one liked that def. The only glitch was that, when [] reviewed the video to know what was coming from the other side, the video showed that def was not guilty and that the state had caused the evidence of innocence to disappear following the arrest. Speculate if you will as to the result if no one wanted to represent def.

There are more unlovable crimes out there. Who would defend a person who acts improperly with children? Or even someone accused. Smoke, fire, right? Turns out it ain’t necessarily so. It is easy to get convictions, especially with the relaxed rules of evidence used in such cases. The good news is that our conservative appeals courts tend to favor finality over correcting injustice so we need not burden our consciences with such cases.

In the civil arena, attorneys often get unpopular clients. Would I defend the right of Illinois Nazis or Islamists to parade their obnoxious ideas? Sure. Same rule as for people whose ideas I favor. There will be a time when the ideas I prefer are disfavored, and I want that rule.

With that in mind, sometimes the representation has to include telling the client to shut up and live with whatever offended them. There are a lot of things you cannot sue for. Well, you can sue, but you are likely to lose.

I have been sued for being ugly, with the outcome you should expect. A smart lawyer will try to avoid going down that path with a client.

FM Hilton (profile) says:


“I had thought Randazza was a more serious person.”

I think that he was replying to a legal threat on the same level it was applied at: the point of absolute insanity, defending the indefensible, you know.

Most lawyers would write in verbose statements and hide their true motivations using words that could be taken apart by others on the opposing side, to endless complications.

Randazza was writing the truth, in the only manner that the opposing side would and can understand: plain honest English which a 12 year old would understand.

That’s because the person he’s writing about is a 12 year old posing as a grown man, who justifies groping and raping women as a valid selling point in his ‘lectures’.

No, I don’t think any lawyer would have an argument about this. Pretty plain writing that will at least be understood by the dimmest of minds.

Of course he has complete contempt for the entire affair. Anyone with any moral compass worth using would.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Bounty

Isn’t it illegal to offer to pay someone to commit a crime?

Read the offer carefully. Mr Randazza wrote:

I would imagine that there may be different social mores in Tokyo, but I bet that royal ass kickings do happen there. I would like to offer a bounty of $5,000 to anyone in Tokyo who beats the bejesus of your client, as long as the ass whuppery results in his hospitalization, and it is in response to him assaulting a Japanese woman (double the pledge if it is the woman herself who puts him in the hospital).

Mr Randazza’s letter is dated from Nevada, and also addressed to Nevada. Further, the address carries the line “Via Email Only”.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Bounty

He’s talking about the ass kicking being self defense. Self defense is not only when the victim defends themselves it is also when someone else defends them against violence by stopping it in a reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances way.

Also the laws of Japan allow a LOT more ‘reasonable force’ than is currently in most other nations when the violence is being committed against a female.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Bounty

He’s talking about the ass kicking being self defense.

Maybe, though the phrasing “in response to” is at best vague and at worst implies a revenge beating rather than a defensive action. In addition, the bounty is not for any defense of a woman as long as it’s effective, but only if the guy is hospitalized as a result. Seems pretty sketchy to me.

Queex (profile) says:

If he was just peddling the usual PUA garbage, it would be a free speech issue. But he’s not, so it isn’t; or at least, not solely.

If someone wanted to give seminars about how to knife someone and take their wallet, I don’t think there would be any objection to denying them an entry visa. It’s clearly teaching how to do a criminal and violent act, and that should not attract automatic free speech protections anywhere.

Blanc wants to give seminars about how to use physical violence (and the implicit threat of further physical violence) to get what you want (attention and/or sex from a woman). That’s also teaching how to do a criminal and violent act.

If the authorities of the countries in question decide that’s not quite enough to deny a visa, that’s their process and decision. But to object to petitioning for that decision to be considered in the first place on the grounds of some sort of ‘free speech slippery slope’ is asinine.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“If someone wanted to give seminars about how to knife someone and take their wallet, I don’t think there would be any objection to denying them an entry visa. It’s clearly teaching how to do a criminal and violent act, and that should not attract automatic free speech protections anywhere.”

Why not? What is the basis in law for curtailing free speech based on that criteria? Consider:

– innumerable books, articles, movies, and TV shows provide highly detailed instruction on how to commit crimes and how to evade detection/apprehension — see any of the “CSI” franchise for example.

– the military teaches people how to kill and those materials are freely available; there are classes based on them available to anyone who wants to pay.

– a ridiculous number of video games are based around the idea of “shoot everything that moves”.

– even self-defense instruction classes carry an offensive component — by necessity. Students are taught how to disable an attacker, and of course precisely that same skill can be used for offensive purposes.

We are surrounded by materials and people who teach us about all kinds of horrible things, some in copious detail. Yet we don’t ban their speech — because we recognize the difference between speech and action.

I’m not saying I approve of any/all of this sort of speech. For the most part, I don’t. I regard violence as the refuge of the incompetent. But my disapproval is best expressed via criticism, rebuttal, sarcasm, and other means, not by using the power of the state to censor those engaged in such speech.

Let me pose a hypothetical for you. We’re aware that this asshole is teaching the practice of sexual assault and rape. Suppose that someone else wishes to teach women how to avoid these attacks. Suppose that as part of their training, they use Blanc’s presentation — because of course, a first step in figuring out how to defend oneself is to understand one’s adversary. Should they be prevented from doing so? (Put IP issues aside for this, I’m asking in the context of free speech.)

Shutting this guy up — no matter how effective — will not make the problem go away. It probably won’t even make him go away. He’ll lie low, change his name and location, and be right back at it in a year or two. And he’s not the only one engaged in this despicable practice.

So I don’t think it’s the right approach. No, I want this guy up on the stage with a big, bright spotlight on him. I want to make sure everyone sees what he does and hears what he says. Because the louder he is, the easier it will be to counter him. Conversely, if he goes underground, it’ll be much more difficult to know what he’s doing and thus much more difficult to counter him.

It’s tempting to try to muzzle people like this. I understand why: I feel that temptation too. But it never works. It didn’t work with the Nazis or the Klan or anybody else, and it won’t work here either.

Adaline (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Why not? What is the basis in law for curtailing free speech based on that criteria?

That he hasn’t been barred from peddling his speech in the US probably means what he does isn’t (as of yet) breaking US law. (And maybe nobody ever sued him to see whether a court will find him guilty. Who knows.)

However, this doesn’t mean he has broken no law in the countries that refuse his presence. Such blatant misogyny and racism, coupled with promoting sexual harassment, may very well run afoul of laws in certain countries. But let’s put aside our opinions whether such laws should be valid or not and focus on your examples vs. his speech.

Some parents/teachers/politicians may disagree with me, but most books, games, and other forms of consumable media that “provide highly detailed instruction on how to commit crimes and how to evade detection/apprehension” present fiction, and the reason they provide such details is that they try to be realistic.

If you want to make a military-themed FPS game like Call of Duty and be serious with it, you’ll have to make your guns realistic. You could have players shoot marshmallows and incapacitate enemy combatants by overloading them with sweetness (okay, maybe there’s such a game somewhere, I have no idea), but if the rest of the game were serious, it’d be ridiculed for being unrealistic.

Similarly, even with a decidedly unrealistic, fantasy game like Skyrim, you need to make swords look like swords: sharp and able to cut things in two. You could have players whack dragons with something that wouldn’t hurt if used to hit others in real life, such as a pillow, but barring intentional easter eggs and the like, your game would be ridiculed for being unrealistic.

Simply put: meticulous details, which sometimes emphasise on violence, are often needed for realism in such cases. The goal of including such details is not to promote the violence within (again, some parents/teachers/politicians may disagree).

To teach people to get laid or even be a pick-up artist, one does not need any details promoting sexual harassment (not beyond verbal actions, at least). You don’t tell your friend asking advice to approach a girl to consider assaulting her as a Plan B. You don’t tell him to consider coercion if his earnest approach failed.

Blanc chose to include details relating to ways to conduct sexual harassment in his presentation meant to ‘teach’ men on dealing with women. He chose to suggest white men to use their God-given right for being white to use as a ‘leverage’ to lord over Japanese women. (I chuckled as I wrote that sentence. Having some Japanese acquaintances myself, it makes me wonder if Blanc has actually socialised with real Japanese women other than strangers he promotes to harass or fictional characters.)

Yes, instructions relating to something like self-defence are bound to give ways to disarm and incapacitate (among others) an attacker. I won’t dispute that something like that does have an element of violence. But beyond the health advantages mentioned by another poster above, martial arts and self-defence techniques have the obvious purpose of defending yourself.

How to make use of them is the user’s discretion, but it’s no different from guns or even explosives (mining, destroying decommissioned buildings, etc). They are tools: in the right hands, they and the knowledge to use them have their use.

Your hypothetical is the same. There’s the issue that self-defence instructions focused on protecting women from men like Blanc probably wouldn’t be rich in details on the attempted harassment itself, but even if it were, and even if the details pertaining to harassment — meant to educate women to be ready in various situations — ended up being abused as a manual by similarly depraved men, the self-defence instructions themselves have their use. Just like guns and explosives, there will be abuses and misuses, but that doesn’t invalidate the good uses.

Sexual assault/harassment techniques and the knowledge to apply them in certain situations have no valid use in whatever situation.

Let’s put it this way: he’s free to express his views and opinions on women, racism, misogyny, and sexual relationships. He’s free to say it loud and clear that he thinks Japanese women are nothing more than sex slaves for sexually depraved white men. He’s free to claim that people like him should hold total control in sexual relationships just because they’re white males. He’s not the only such person in the world.

What he may find himself in trouble for is encouraging sexual harassment/assault and promoting ways to do it. I’m free to openly say I detest people of certain races, religions, ethnicities, etc, but I shouldn’t expect my platform to be there for me to speak on when I start saying things like “look, here’s how you do it: walk up to this person of that ethnicity and punch them straight in the face. It’s fine because they’re ethnically inferior to us and we can do whatever the heck we want.”

Queex (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“because we recognize the difference between speech and action.”

Giving seminars is an action. Discussing the issues, making them part of a work of art, that’s speech. Making a career of delivering it as a practical how-to guide? Action, not speech. I’m not saying that he should automatically be denied entry – I’m saying that denying him a visa is an idea with merit and the pros and cons should be carefully mulled over by the appropriate authorities rather than dismissed with knee-jerk cries of ‘freeze peach!’.

“I want to make sure everyone sees what he does and hears what he says. Because the louder he is, the easier it will be to counter him.”

That’s not how real life works. No matter how much opprobrium is heaped upon him by sensible society, the fact that he was able to get away with these acts, and get away with promoting them, will embolden those who are predisposed to approve of and/or think like him. It also sends a message to his/their likely victims that their safety is not as important as his speaking career. If he’s denied entry to a country, it makes it clear that his actions are not okay to anyone who might consider replicating them. It makes it clear to people who are vulnerable to these kinds of attackers that society has their back.

Anonymous Coward says:

Unlike the US, Australia doesn’t have a blanket right to free speech. There is a right to freedom of expression but this is not absolute and may be restricted on the basis of (among other things) advocating violence (which is arguably what Julien is doing by suggesting people assault others and especially those of a specific race and gender).

In addition, Australia is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
Article 4(a) of CERD requires countries to criminalise all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any racial or ethnic groups.

I suspect that the petition highlighted to the Australian government the actions of this organisation but I’d like to believe they would have been stopped even if the petition hadn’t happened. And saying that the petition might have impacted his right to free speech; well, he has no right to that there.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...